"The word "creed"—derived from the Latin "
credo, I believe"—is, in its ecclesiastical sense, used to denote a summary or concise statement of doctrines formulated and accepted by a church. Although usually connected with religious belief, it has a wider meaning, and designates the principles which an individual or an associated body so holds that they become the springs and guides of conduct. Some sects of Christians reject formal creeds and profess to find the Scriptures sufficient for all purposes that creeds are meant to serve. The Christian religion rests on Christ, and the final appeal on any question of doctrine must be to the Scriptures which testify of Him: but it is found that very different conclusions are often reached by those who profess to ground their beliefs upon the same passages of the Word of God.
Almost every heresy that has disturbed the unity of the Church has been advocated by men who appealed to Scripture in confirmation of the doctrines they taught. The true teaching of the Word of God is gathered from careful and continuous searching of the Scriptures, and there is danger of fatal error when conclusions are drawn from isolated passages interpreted in accordance with preconceived opinions. It has been found not only expedient but needful that the Christian Churches should set forth in creeds and confessions the doctrines which they believe the Scriptures affirm. They are bound not only to accept Scripture as the rule of faith, but to make known the sense in which they understand it. As unlearned and unstable men wrest and subvert the Sacred Writings, it is fitting that those who are learned and not unstable should publish sound expositions of their contents. In the light of creeds, converts are enabled to test their own position, and to put to proof the claims of those who profess to be teachers of Christian doctrine."
Based on this explanation of creeds above, we summarize that:
- Some Christians reject creeds believing that the Scriptures alone are capable of handling the duties that creeds were meant to perform.
- Very different conclusions are often reached by those who profess to ground their beliefs upon the same passages of the Word of God.
- There is danger of fatal error when conclusions are drawn from isolated passages interpreted in accordance with preconceived opinions.
- It is needful that the Christian Churches should set forth in creeds and confessions the doctrines which they believe the Scriptures affirm.
- As unlearned and unstable men wrest and subvert the Sacred Writings, it is fitting that those who are learned and not unstable should publish sound expositions of their contents.
- In the light of creeds, converts are enabled to test their own position, and to put to proof the claims of those who profess to be teachers of Christian doctrine.
- Almost every heresy that has disturbed the unity of the Church has been advocated by men who appealed to Scripture in confirmation of the doctrines they taught.
Why Do We Need Creeds then? Because using the bible alone as the definitive source book for Christian doctrine may lead to fatal error by those who wrest and subvert scripture passages to interpret them to support their own pre-conceived opinions. The author of the above treatise sounds like a Catholic apologist. But it is actually a 19th century Protestant theologian named Rev.
James Dodds. In his exposition on the creeds he unknowingly has given us an elegant explanation of why the paradigm of sola-scriptura fails to adequately enunciate the truths of Christian doctrine. Something outside of the bible (in this case a creed written by the Church Jesus started) is needed to rightly interpret what the Holy Spirit is attempting to share with us. Without the Nicean Creed, and a Church that put it together,
we might be Arians.
There is a long history throughout Christendom of individuals who have approached scripture with a pre-conceived opinion and then pulled out(wrested) isolated passages to align with their new doctrines.
Thank you Dr. Dodd in helping us see why creeds (and the Church led by the Holy Spirit) are so important.
3 Comments:
Curious, Russ, what prevents someone from reading a Sacred Magisterium declaration, and misinterpreting it?
Nothing prevents this from happening. It happens all the time. Some Catholics attempt to "prove" that we should adhere to a 6 day Creation based on their interpretation of Humanae Generis. Others see the opposite when they read it. Others will use their own interpretations of the documents of Vatican 2 to justify attempts at reducing the priesthood to nothing more than the laity, so called "Spirit of Vat 2."
Protestants misinterpret the apostles creed all the time, a very early part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. They "eisegete it" declaring that the communion of saints doesn't mean praying to people who have died and having them pray for us. Up until the reformation, this is what the interpretation was, but the reformers re-interpreted it to fit their new doctrines. Could 1200 years of Christians all be wrong and the reformers were right? No, it defies logic and this type of reasoning goes against the fact that Jesus gave us his Holy Spirit to lead his Church in all truth.
The heart of the matter and the reason for my original post is to point out that even Protestant theologians recognize the danger of attempting to derive doctrines from interpreting the bible alone without "those who are learned and not unstable who should publish sound expositions of their contents."(like a magisterial document or a creed?)
That is why creeds are necessary. If the bible was perspicuous, we would be "creed free" and never have had the Arian heresy threatening early Christendom and wouldn't be having this discussion even now.
Reformed theologian James Dodd says it best and I re-iterate: Almost every heresy that has disturbed the unity of the Church has been advocated by men who appealed to Scripture in confirmation of the doctrines they taught." Luther, Zwingli and Calvin come to my mind though I doubt he was thinking of them.
What protects the Catholic Church from falling into dis-unity is the three legged stool of Catholic faith: Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium( the teaching authority of the Church which guards, defends and interprets the Deposit of Faith)Remove one leg of the stool and you fall on your you know what! Even Luther appealed mightily to Tradition when Zwingli and others decided to reject the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Read this link here regarding Luther's appeal to Tradition this link here regarding Luther's appeal to Tradition
So, if a way-ward Catholic theologian(and there has been plenty of them) comes up with a novel interpretation of scripture and/or a magisterial document, it will be judged by the three-legged stool. If it is found wanting, the teaching is refuted and the theologian is censured.
However, the same can't be said of Protestantism. I have been in churches that have split because of the pastor's own interpretation of scripture and he went off on his own to start a new church. The thousands of protestant sects that continue to sprout up daily are evidence of the very problem that James Dodd outlined.
Using the bible alone without the authority of the Catholic Church leads to disunity. History has proven it. You disagree, but I would like to see concrete examples(modern day or historic) where the paradigm of sola scriptura has actually lead to unity among the faithful and has lead to churches coming together and false teachings being censured. If the paradigm is working so well, why are there more than 25,000 separate protestant groups with heterogeneous teachings, all with the same bible and the same Holy Spirit? Why are Lutheran and Anglican theologians currently writing about how the paradigm has failed them as they watch their denominations implode?
"Almost every heresy that has disturbed the unity of the Church has been advocated by men who appealed to Scripture in confirmation of the doctrines they taught." can be shortened to "every heresy that has disturbed the unity of the Church has been advocated by men" And that will never change, wether it's practiced by a church or an individual. There is no church immune. As for Arianism. The Creed was a product of the answer to it, something even Constantine defended. The wrestling with Arianism involved the appeal to all of scripture to rectify that situation, so what you may see has the cause is also the cure. I think creeds are ALWAYS good, as long as they support and don't conflict with scripture. I want to avoid attacking the Catholic church, but to say it is conflict-free, and all members are in one accord is not true. The early church during this time wrestled with Arianism in a collective fashion, with the hierarchy that they had in that day,(which looked different than it does today) Tradition is another issue as to who decides what is tradition? And what happens when there is conflict between two Magisterium declarations? I know there are answers to these questions, but I just wanted to point out that stark differences you point to may not be that stark. Also, Luther's an easy target, because his life path puts so many contradictions on display--being at the forefront of the Reformation. I would just not that none of his convictions were novel, and can find support among other church fathers. On side note, I refrain from commenting on anything pro-Catholic, and respect what you're doing on your blog. I do feel compelled to respond on any inferred criticism of my belief. I intend to always be respectful, and I check my motive. But if you don't want your comments section to include criticisms, I won't post anymore. thanks for your patience.
Post a Comment
Home